Thread: The end of racing for minors?

By that logic kids are forbidden from almost everything that is fun

Originally Posted by SheepOfBlue

By that logic kids are forbidden from almost everything that is fun

But the government knows what is best for everyone.

The nanny-state grows...

Wow.

Take that to SCOTUS.

Odd legal reasoning. Partially undermines the notion that parents have legal control over their children.

Originally Posted by MotoVegas

Odd legal reasoning. Partially undermines the notion that parents have legal control over their children.

That's been happening for a long time now.

Originally Posted by luvtolean

That's been happening for a long time now.

Exactly, they have done that. And the kids know and use it too. Correct a kid in public like your dad did when you were young and see what happens.



As far as laws in this country, I have said it and will say it again. It is not the fact if you are right or wrong, it is how good your attorney is.

Originally Posted by maxib

I dunno. Please, all you legal types, help me understand this.

Frankly, even us "legal types" are having a difficult time cutting through that ruling. I'm trying to wrap my head around the public policy decision. Only thing I can come up with is excessive judicial activism reaching into WHAT activities a parent can willingly waive for their child; and here it boils down to pretty much nothing more than "motorcycles = bad".

Hopefully the Supremes take this (no guarantee cert will be granted, that is within the discretion of the court). I can think of numerous events children undertake that require parental waivers to engage in, maxib brings up the most obvious (surgery). This is, imho, bad law. Then again, Florida is good at "bad law" and have been for a while.

I do not think that this ruling is logical. Kids have to get their parents permission to do anything when they are around 12-14 anyway, so if a parents says they and their child understands the risks that are involved, let them participate. But, I can see this limiting any talent coming out of the state of FL.

Since a minor also cannot enter into a legally binding contract, doesn't this law now prohibit them from doing anything requiring contractual obligations (including signing a permission slip to participate in after school activities)?

Originally Posted by seamus

Since a minor also cannot enter into a legally binding contract, doesn't this law now prohibit them from doing anything requiring contractual obligations (including signing a permission slip to participate in after school activities)?

Technically speaking a minor CAN enter into a binding legal contract. But here is the twist (and then the common everyday understanding that a "minor can't enter a binding contract"); the minor can VOID it if s/he so chooses based on what we call "capacity" due to them not being of the age of majority. Therefore, businesses don't contract with minors (for obvious reason that the minor can duck out at ANY point) notwithstanding they legally could do so if they wanted to bear 100% of the risk of the contract - which they don't.

But to answer your question, in the strictest sense, I am sure the ruling we are discussing (waiver by parent at a track/race event being invalidated) was restricted to the facts of the case. However, the underlying reasoning (as flawed as it may be) can then be used to stretch the meaning into other areas of a parent's right to control the legal rights of their children.

Originally Posted by MotoVegas

Technically speaking a minor CAN enter into a binding legal contract. But here is the twist (and then the common everyday understanding that a "minor can't enter a binding contract"); the minor can VOID it if s/he so chooses based on what we call "capacity" due to them not being of the age of majority. Therefore, businesses don't contract with minors (for obvious reason that the minor can duck out at ANY point) notwithstanding they legally could do so if they wanted to bear 100% of the risk of the contract - which they don't.

But to answer your question, in the strictest sense, I am sure the ruling we are discussing (waiver by parent at a track/race event being invalidated) was restricted to the facts of the case. However, the underlying reasoning (as flawed as it may be) can then be used to stretch the meaning into other areas of a parent's right to control the legal rights of their children.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. The precedent setting is really disturbing. Especially watching the lawsuits that go to court each year.

If they aren't careful then docs won't be able to treat kids. I mean if we are going to say that a parent can't decide what happens to a kid...